
6 



^2 



Hawaiian Annexation. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. ROBERT R . H I T T , 

OF ILLINOIS, 

In the House of Representatives, 

Saturday, June 11, 1S9S. 

The House having under consideration the joint resolution (II. Res. 259) to 
provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States- 
Mr. HLTT said: 

Mr. Speaker: The measure which is now before the House for 
the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands is substantially the same 
as a treaty negotiated last year, which is here put into the form 
of a joint resolution. The treaty was duly ratified by the Senate 
of the Republic of Hawaii. We therefore know that we are act- 
ing with the cordial assent of the Government of the country 
proposed to be annexed. That treaty was preceded by another, 
negotiated by President Harrison five years ago between the two 
countries, providing for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands 
to the United States, which treaty was duly ratified by the Gov- 
ernment of Hawaii and would probably have been ratified by our 
Senate had it not been withdrawn by reason of a change of th9 
occupant of our Executive office. 

This is not a novel question at all. It is not an emergency propo- 
sition sprung upon us suddenly. It is not a case of greed for ter- 
ritory and overweening influence brought to bear by a great and 
powerful Government upon one of the smallest in the world to 
constrain it to give up its independent existence and be absorbed 
by the other under the form of a legal proceeding. There is no 
oppression on our side, there is no unwillingness on the other side. 
The whole proceeding is with the cordial assent of the duly con- 
stituted authorities of the Hawaiian Republic, and in accordance 
with the terms of the constitution of that Republic. 

It is in pursuance of a policy long discussed and well known 
there and to our people here and to all the world. It is a result 
often contemplated by the successive governments of those islands 
for fifty years, because the circumstances surrounding the little 
nation in all the changes in its history have plainly made this a 
foregone conclusion. So slender, so tottering a political existence 
in the midst of the mighty political powers of the world had a 
precarious tenure of life. It was a continual temptation to them — 
an all important possession of a weak power. It has often been 
threatened. Several times it has been seized and occupied by a 
passing commander of a frigate — by a French captain in 1829, by 
a British commander in 1843, again by the French in 1849. 

Conscious of its feeble ability to maintain independence among 
the nations, the subject of union with our country has been con- 
templated long. One of the kings of Hawaii executed a deed of 

3468 •J-.r.-ur. i 



<V 2 

^ cession to the United States in 1851. Another of the kings pre- 
^ • pared a draft of a treaty of annexation to the United States in 1854, 
but before it was executed he died. As I have said, treaties of an- 
nexation to the United States have twice been negotiated with this 
Government within the last five years. It is the natural result of 
events and causes long operating and now concluding with mutual, 
cordial consent. 

There is nothing that can impute to us, though this is so great 
and mighty a nation, any purpose of exercising undue pressure, 
as has ordinarily been the case in European history where a pow- 
erful government has taken possession of, absorbed, and extin- 
guished a smaller. The only question we have to consider, when 
this little commonwealth with open hands offers itself to us, is 
whether we would be better on by taking this step: whether it 
would be advantageous to us to accept these islands; whether they 
are worth owning; whether their possession is of any value to us 
or not. 

ARE THE ISLANDS WORTH ANNEXING? 

That is a simple question and ought to be easily answered. 
Other nations have long since expressed their opinion of the 
value of the islands in many ways. Though it is a very small 
nationality, a very small extent of the earth's surface, not equal 
in people to a Congressional district represented on this floor, yet 
nineteen nations continually maintain representatives at Hono- 
lulu to watch their interests. We keep there to-day an envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Why? Not because 
they are fertile and beautiful islands, not because there are a little 
over a hundred thousand people there. No; it is because of the 
supreme importance and value of the islands on account of their 
position. 

They sit facing our western coast— that long stretch confronting 
the great Pacific Ocean, the most extensive body of water in the 
world, stretching away for six, seven, eight thousand miles — and 
they are the nearest point to our coast, and far, very far, removed 
from any other point in that vast sea. They are 2,000 miles away 
from us. That seems a very considerable distance, but the im- 
mense stretch beyond them to the other portions of the earth is so 
much greater that they seem comparatively near and are a part 
of our own S3 7 stem. 

With the great change in the construction of fighting ships, all 
of which are now moved by steam, coal has become an essential 
of maritime war, as much so as powder or guns, and across that 
wide ocean any vessel of war coming to attack the United States 
must stop for coal and supplies at the Hawaiian Islands before it 
can attack us. No ship can be constructed, no battle ship exists 
in the world, which can make the trip from the other side of that 
wide sea to our shores, conduct any operation of hostility against 
us, and ever get back unless it has its supply of coal renewed. 

Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman permit an interruption? I 
simply want to call the gentleman's attention to the map. 

Mr. HITT. We are all pretty familiar with the map— the re- 
markable position of these islands and the routes that ships are 
accustomed to follow. I do not suppose that my personal opin- 
ion is worth more than that of the average of mankind who are 
not specially qualified as commanders and mariners, nor that any 
member of the House is so presumptious as to consider his own 
personal opinion itself an important fact. 

3168 



But we have on this critical and central question, which is not 
one of common judgment, the opinions of the mi st distinguished, 
specially expert, and able men of the age, the greatest commanders 
of our armies and our fleets who are living. It is an impressive 
and convincing fact that all have given the same opinion. There 
has been no divergence. Everyone has stated that the possession 
of those islands was to us of great importance, many of them say 
indispensable; that it will diminish, not increase, the necessity for 
naval force, economize ships of war and not require more; that in 
the possession of an enemy, if we shall so foolishly and unwisely 
act as to refuse annexation and permit them to pass into the hands 
of an enemy, they will furnish a secure base for active operations 
to harass and destroy the cities of our western coast; that in our 
possession, duly fortified, those islands will paralyze any fleet, 
however strong, however superior to our own naval force in the 
Pacific, before it can attack our coast. 

I accept the opinion of men like Admiral alker and Captain 
Mahan and General Schofield, Admiral Belknap, General Alexan- 
der, and Admiral Dupont and Chief Engineer Melville. It is a 
long list of great sailors and soldiers, distinguished strategists 
and authorities. The striking fact is that there is no dissent 
among them. These men, who are authorities, have all concurred 
as to the great importance of the islands. On one of the islands 
is Pearl Harbor, now unimproved, a possible stronghold and a 
refuge for a fleet, which, fortified by the expenditure of half a 
million dollars and garrisoned and aided by the militia of the 
island and its resources, can be made impregnable to any naval 
force, however large. 

I speak of a naval force. To capture it there must be a land 
force also. The possession of all the islands was stated by these 
able men, who were before the committee, to be essential, as they 
would furnish a valuable militia to promptly cooperate with a 
garrison of one or two regiments of artillery until, in the short 
distance from our shore, we could reenforce them with abundant 
military strength to repel the assault of the disembarking troops, 
who must come many thousands of miles farther than our own. 

This is not my mere assertion or opinion on so grave and tech- 
nical a question. I am merely giving some of the leading points 
made by those whose names command the respect of the military 
and naval professions throughout the world and w T ho have said 
that the possession not only of Pearl Harbor but of all that little 
group of islands is to us a necessity. I will give some expressions 
used by these distinguished authorities. I might give many more. 

Captain Mahan, the most distinguished writer and authority of 
our time on the history of sea power, says: 

It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves, we can not ex- 
pect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other belligerent from occupy- 
ing them: nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such occupation. The 
commercial valuo is not great enough to provoke neutral Interposition. In 
short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the Pacific coast, be- 
cause we should have not only to defend our own coast, but to prevent, by 
naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands; whereas, if wo preoccu- 
pied them, fortifications could preserve them to us. 

In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade 
©ur Pacific coast without occupying Hawaii as a base. 

General Schofield, who spent three months on the islands and 
made a careful survey of Pearl River Harbor, stated to our com- 
mittee: 

The most important feature of all is that it economizes the naval force 
rather than increases it. It is capable of absolute defense by shore batteries; 
o4C8 



4 



so that a naval fleet, after going there and replenishing its supplies and mak- 
ing what repairs are needed, can go away and leave the harbor perfectly 
saie under the protection of the army. Then arises at once the question why 
this harbor will be of consequence to the United States. It has not been 
easy to make that perfectly clear to the minds of men who have not made 
such subjects the study of a lifetime till now; but the conditions of the pres- 
ent war, it seems to me, ought to make it clear to everybody. 

At this moment the Government is fitting out quite a large fleet of steam- 
ers at San Francisco to carry large detachments of troops and military sup- 
plies of all kinds to the Philippine Islands. Honolulu is almost in the direct 
route. That fleet, of course, will want very much to recoal at Honolulu, thus 
saving that amount of freight and tonnage for essential stores to be carried 
with it. Otherwise they would have to carry coal enough to carry them all 
the way from San Francisco to Manila and that would occupy a large amount 
of the carrying capacity of the fleet, and if they recoal at Honolulu all that 
will be saved. More than that, a fleet is liable at any time to meet with stress 
of weather, or perhaps a heavy storm, and there might be an accident to the 
machinery which will make it necessary to put into the nearest port possible 
for repairs and additional supplies. By the time it reaches there its coal sup- 
ply may be well-nigh exhausted; it then has to replenish its coal supply to 
carry it to whatever port it could reach. 

If I am not misinformed in regard to the laws of neutrality, the supply of 
coal that can be taken on board at neutral ports is only sufficient to bring it 
back to the nearest home port, and not enough to carry it across the ocean, 
so that if we had to regard Honolulu as a neutral port, we could only load up 
coal enough to bring us back to San Francisco. Now, let us suppose, on the 
other hand, that the Spanish navy in the Pacific as well as in the Atlantic, 
or both, were a little stronger than ours instead of being somewhat weaker. 
The first thing they would do would be to go and take possession of the 
Sandwich Islands and make them the base of naval operations against the 
Pacific coast. 

You have only to consider the state of mind which exists all along the At- 
antic coast under the erroneous apprehension that the Spanish fleet might 
possibly assail our coast to see what would be the case if the Spanish fleet 
were a good deal stronger than ours and took possession of Honolulu and 
made it a base of operations in attacking the points on the Pacific coast. We 
would be absolutely powerless, because we would have no fleet there to dis- 
pute the possession of the Sandwich Islands, whereas, if we held that place 
and fortified it so that a foreign navy could not take it, it could not operate 
against the Pacific coast at all. for it could not bring coal enough across the 
Pacific Ocean to sustain an attack on the Pacific coast. 

It happens that in this war we have picked out the only nation in the world 
that is a little weaker than ourselves. The Spanish fleet on the Asiatic sta- 
tion was the only one of all the fleets we could have overcome as we did. Of 
course that can not again happen, for we will not be able to pick up so weak 
an enemy next time. We are liable at any time to get into a war with a na- 
tion which has a more powerful fleet than ours, and it is of vital importance, 
therefore, if we can, to hold the point from which they can conduct opera- 
tions against our Pacific coast. Especially is that true until the Nicaragua 
Canal is finished, because we can not send a fleet from the Atlantic to the Pa- 
cific. We can not send them around Cape Horn and repel an attack there. 
If we had the canal finished, we would be much better off in that respect ; but 
even then we would want the possession of a base very much. 

The same eminent and experienced soldier, when asked whether 
it would be sufficient to have Pearl Harbor without the islands, 
said we ought to have the islands to hold the harbor; that if left 
free and neutral complications would arise with foreign nations, 
who would take advantage of a weak little Republic with claims 
for damages enforced by war ships, as is frequently seen. If an- 
nexed, we would settle any dispute with a foreign nation; that we 
would be much stronger if we owned the islands as part of our 
territory, and would then also have the resources of the islands, 
which are so fertile, for military supplies; that if we do not have 
the political control they may become Japanese; and we would be 
surrounded by a hostile people. 

Admiral Walker, who has had long experience in the waters of 
the Hawaiian Islands, emphatically confirmed the views of Gen- 
eral Schofield, especially that it would cost far less to protect the 
Pacific coast with the Hawaiian Islands than without them; that 

34€8 



5 



it would be taking a point of advantage instead of giving it to 
your enemy. 

Admiral Dupont, in a report made as long ago as 1851, expressed 
his view in these words: 

It is impossible to estimate too highly the value and importance of the 
Sandwich Islands, whether in a commercial or military point of view. Should 
circumstances ever place them in our hands, they would prove the most im- 
portant acquisition we could make in the whole Pacific Ocean— an acquisition 
intimately connected with our commercial and naval supremacy in those seas. 

THE TEACHING OP RECENT EVENTS. 

For a war of defense the Hawaiian Islands are to us inestimably 
important, most essential, and in this light they have been most 
often discussed. The discussion in past years has attracted Utile 
public attention, because our people, until they were lately 
awakened by the war and the movement to reenf orce Dewey, have 
not thought much about the exposed situation of our western 
coast in case of war with a really great power or the necessity of 
possessing these islands confronting our Pacific coast. 

We learn fast in war time. Not long ago, when the air was 
filled with rumors of Spanish war ships coming to our eastern and 
northeastern coast, many members here, and I was one of them, 
received telegrams from the coast cities to use their influence to 
have an adequate naval force sent to the threatened coast on the 
northeast. Now we have fleets and strong land forces and coast 
defenses on the east. We have comparatively slender prepara- 
tions on the west coast. There is not anywhere on the east a 
group of islands of such cardinal and unique importance as the 
Sandwich Islands — not even the Bermudas. 

Not only in defensive war but in war of any kind they are nec- 
essary to us. In the events of the hour we have an illustration of 
the importance and the military necessity of possessing those 
islands. The present war was begun for the declared purpose of 
expelling Spain from Cuba and liberating the struggling people 
of that island; but once involved in war, it is the duty of the 
President, who is Commanrler of the Army and Navy, to strike at 
Spain wherever he can effectively; and a great and successful 
blow was struck in Manila by gallant Admiral Dewey and hi3 
fleet. [Applause.] 

There is no one in our country so recreant to his duty as an 
American that he would refuse to support the President in suc- 
coring Dewey after his magnificent victory, lying in Manila Bay, 
holding in control the Spanish power there, but unable to land 
for want of reenf orcements and surrounded by millions of Spanish 
subjects. Yet it is not possible to send support to Dewey to-day 
without taking on coal and supplies at Honolulu in the Hawaiian 
Islands — a neutral power. 

By the law of nations, that power is bound to refuse to allow 
ships engaged in war to take on supplies or stay in port over 
twenty-four hours and is liable for all damages to Spanish inter- 
ests caused by allowing the rules of neutrality in war to be vio- 
lated by us. We are strong; Hawaii is weak. We absolutely 
must use that port, and do use it. 

If the rights and duties of neutrality were enforced by the Ha- 
waiian G-overnment, and the Monadnock and the Monterey, which 
areleaving San Francisco for Manila, were compelled to go through 
with such coal as they could carry, they could not get half way 
before their fires would go out and they would lie weltering, help- 
3168 



6 



less, dead, like derelicts, in the Pacific. In order to reach the 
Philippine Islands it is a necessity that the transports, battle ships, 
and other vessels of the fleet shall take on supplies at Honolulu, 
and they are doing it. 

IS OUR PRESENT POSITION HONORABLE? 

There is a feature connected with this that is humiliating to an 
American who loves the consistent dignity and honor of his coun- 
try and desires to have it command the respect of the world. 
Within the last two weeks 1 have heard, in conversation among 
members of this House, expressions of great impatience at the 
conduct of European powers, upon newspaper rumor that Span- 
ish ships of war had been permitted to recoal in one French 
island, that a Spanish ship of war had been aliowed to stay thir- 
ty-six hours in a port of another island belonging to France, that 
supplies had been derived by Spain from Germany, even in this 
time of war. The discontent expressed throughout our country 
in the press was so wide, the criticism so sharp, that M. Hano- 
taux, the French minister of foreign affairs, in order to preserve 
and promote amicable relations and kindly sentiments, made a 
public statement disposing of all these disquieting rumors, and 
declaring that France loyally and faithfully observes and will 
observe her obligations as a neutral toward both belligerents 
everywhere. 

While we have been giving notice to France, Germany, and 
Great Britain that war was existing and calling their attention 
to their duty as neutral powers, in order that they might issue 
neutrality proclamations, while on the east we respectfully ap- 
proached German William, who commands a hundred legions, 
with long formal notices of our belligerency, trusting that he 
would adhere to the rules of neutrality, we came on the west to 
the little Republic of Hawaii, and without a word of courtesy or 
request took possession of all we cared to take, in utter contempt 
of her neutrality, of our duties as a belligerent nation dealing 
with a neutral country, and in disregard of the heavy liabilities 
we forced upon Hawaii. 

We had even piled up 10,000 tons of coal in Honolulu Harbor 
for our Navy, a considerable part of it before the declaration of 
war. Yesterday came the news that the Charleston, one of our 
battle ships, entered the harbor of Honolulu without so much as 
saying "by your leave," to stay there as long as she will. All the 
other ships in the fleet going over to our Asiatic squadron do the 
same thing. We have the superior physical force to do this, but 
we are not in a position to do it with impunity in the face of the 
public opinion of the world, if we desire to command the respect 
of mankind and our own self-respect. 

THE THREE RULES GOVERNING NEUTRALITY. 

What is the law that governs the conduct of a neutral nation 
and its liability? When the treaty of Washington was nego- 
tiated in this city in 1871, the United States presented and pro- 
posed three general rules which should be observed by a neu- 
tral nation and determine its liability. The English refused to 
assent to them in the language first proposed, and after long de- 
bate and modification at last those rules were put in due form, 
accepted, and solemnly placed in that famous treaty. Both na- 
tions agreed to observe and be bound by them in future, and to 
invite the adherence and cooperation of all other nations. 

You have recently seen the spirit and substance of those rules 

3168 



7 



reflected in the proclamations of neutrality issued by many nations. 
Those famous rules sprang from our suggestion. Let me read 
their words, and then see the liability to which we put a neutral 
nation which, willingly or unwillingly, must submit to what we 
are doing to-day at Honolulu, and notice especially the second 
rule which we then pressed and now disregard, and under which 
Hawaii is liable to Spain. By the sixth article of the treaty of 
Washington of 1871 a neutral is bound — 

First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping 
•within its jurisdiction of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe 
is intended to cruise or carry on war against a power with which it is at 
peace, and a,lso to use like diligence to prevent the departure f rom its juris- 
diction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel 
having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction 
to warlike use. 

Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its porta 
or waters as the base of naval operations against the other or for the pur- 
pose of renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms or the recruit- 
ment of men. 

Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to 
all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing 
obligation and duty. 

That is the law of nations as we pressed it unsparingly, and un- 
der which we collected $15,500,000 from Great Britain for depre- 
dations committed on our interests by ships that had been coaled 
or harbored in British ports in violation of that law. So for every 
damage done to Spanish interests by an American war ship which 
has been supplied, repaired, or coaled in the Sandwich Islands 
that Go?ernment, the property of the people of those islands, is 
liable to pay to Spain the full amount of loss. 

When this war is over and peace is declared, if the gentlemen 
opposed to this resolution prevail and prevent annexation and 
continue Hawaii's independent existence, if the liabilities of the 
islands for the claims of Spain against the Republic of Hawaii 
should be referred to arbitration, and the President of the United 
States should be one of the arbitrators, he would have to vote to 
compel them to pay the last cent, no matter how vast might be 
the burden of taxation it would impose on that little people. 

PRESSURE NOW BY FOREIGN POWERS. 

Now, this is not a vague speculation. It is not merely hypo- 
thetical. The property owners in the island are alarmed. The 
foreign powers represented there are active. I hold in my hand a 
dispatch from our minister at Honolulu of May 10. a part of which 
I can not with propriety read, and have not authority to do so; 
but I will read this part: 

The strongest influence has been brought to bear upon the Government 
urging it to proclaim neutrality, give notice to the Bennington to leave port, 
and invite the cooperation of other powers to protect the neutrality ot the 
group. 

He proceeds to state that this is the opinion of the diplomatic 
corps here, and not only them, but the foreign merchants also, 
" and I regret to say many who heretofore have been classed as 
American sympathizers and urgent annexationists. " Do you won- 
der at them? With the prospect of such trouble and taxation 
amounting to confiscation, fearing that the United States, with 
the powerful influences at work in Washington hostile to Hawaii, 
may not come to their rescue, when we have not given a hint, much 
less a pledge, to stand between the little Republic and danger, do 
you wonder that merchants and all property owners are disquieted? 

Bat without any words from us or any assurance from our Gov- 
ernment, notwithstanding the pressure to which it has been sub- 
34:8 



8 



jected, the brave little Hawaiian Government, loving America 
better than Spain and confident in the justice of the great Ameri- 
can people as a child trnsts its father, remains unchanged in its 
purpose. [Applause.] 

Are you not as Americans proud of that little colony, the 
only true American colony, the only spot on earth beyond our 
boundaries in the wide world where our country is preferred 
above all others? [Renewed applause.] That steadfast body of 
men, pressed and menaced by the influence of so many empires 
and kingdoms, threatening them with the danger that would fol- 
low if they permitted the American flag to stay in their harbor, 
remained constant in their devotion to the colors they loved and 
the people they always trusted. They are the same men who, 
when threatened with an unscrupulous, corrupt, and arbitrary 
monarchy, which had violated the constitution, besieged the King 
in his palace and shook his throne, overcame his army, and com- 
pelled him to swear observance of the constitution which he had 
violated. 

The same resolute men drove a worthless Queen from the throne 
when she again attempted to overthrow the constitution and de- 
stroy the guaranties of property — the woman who, when she 
talked with Minister Willis of restoration, wished one condition, 
that she might behead the Americans. I have no apology to make 
for men sprung from our blood who have borne themselves with 
such enlightenment, courage, and energy as these men have done 
[applause] , whose only fault is that they love our flag more than 
their own. They love the flag under which many of them once 
fought. Some of them fought under another, the bonnie blue 
flag, during our great war; but at heart brave Americans all, they 
have united there to sustain the cause of the United States in this 
war with Spain, animated by a love of American institutions and 
love of liberty. They are men who can not be intimidated or 
turned aside from their purpose, men who have successfully re- 
sisted every influence to bring them under the control of other 
foreign governments or any domestic tyranny. 

OITR NATIONAL HONOR IN QUESTION. 

This is a very practical and important question with them, and 
it is important to us. I said we had only the question of interest 
to consider here to-day, whether it would be advantageous to ua 
to annex. Have we not also a high question of national honor? 

While we are demanding the observance of neutrality by other 
nations, we disregard it ourselves. We are compelled to it by 
military necessity. That is the fact. What is the honorable so- 
lution? Annex them and end it all. In a war of defense, as I 
have stated, these islands are to us indispensable. We find, too, 
that in this contest with Spain, which has taken the form of of- 
fensive war, as we are attacking them in the Orient, we are com- 
pelled to use them in order to support Dewey. 

DANGER OF DELAY. 

Can we put this question off indefinitely? Can we play with 
our duty under the law of nations, or shall we try to turn about 
and treat them sincerely as neutral? We know that the actual 
real neutrality of the islands would to-day work us a great injury. 
The minority propose that we should guarantee the independence 
of the islands, which, of course, perpetuates their neutrality and 
puts us in a position that we can not endure. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. I hope the gentleman will not turn 

8468 



9 



too much to one side. If he turns too short to the right, gentle- 
men can not hear him on that side, and if he turns too sharp to 
the left we can not hear him on this; and we all want to hear the 
gentleman. 

Mr. H1TT. I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion, as it implies 
that my remarks have his attention. 

We can not afford to let them alone. We must possess and 
fortify and hold and use them or leave them to their fate. The 
other side of the House propose to guarantee their independence 
by a declaration of Congress. That is a mere matter of words, 
and when war arises words are brushed aside and armies and navies 
decide; and we should prepare not by declarations, but by taking 
the islands. Besides, independence implies all the duties and 
rights of neutrality. The gentlemen would put our Government in 
the dishonorable position of declaring and guaranteeing Hawaiian 
independence as a neutral nation at the very moment when we are 
disregarding their neutrality and independence. 

THEIR FUTURE THREATENED. 

They can not remain as they are. The future is threatening. 
Sagacious statesmen have long"f oreseen it. 

Mr. Willis, whom so many old members will recollect as a valu- 
able member of this House, was sent to these islands by Mr. Cleve- 
land to demand the overthrow of the republican government. 
We all recollect his dispatches. Many of us had the advantage 
of conversation with him when he returned to this country. 

RISING POWER OF JAPAN IN HAWAII. 

In one of those dispatches he mentioned, incidentally, what he 
also said here in conversation, that far the most threatening fact 
in the condition of the islands was the rapid growth of the Japanese 
element, and the purpose for which it was being sent there. There 
are over 24,000 Japanese on the island. They are mostly men, 
grown men; 19,000 of them are men. 

If they voted, it would be converted into a Japanese common- 
wealth immediately. This is not a light thing. 

A BIT OF HISTORY. 

Over twelve years ago the planters, desirous of having other 
labor to diversify their Chinese and Portuguese labor, tried to have 
an additional supply from Japan. An arrangement was made, 
which was put into a convention in 1886, permitting the Japanese 
Immigration Company to send over Japanese laborers upon due 
authorization from the Hawaiian Government. These Japanese 
came at first in small numbers; but pretty soon they began to come 
faster, and the Japanese Government, which is directed by able 
statesmen, anxious to take advantage of all opportunities, made a 
demand that these Japanese subjects going there should have the 
same rights as the natives. 

A JAPANESE FUTURE NOW PLAINLY THREATENED THEM. 

That startled the Hawaiian Government. That was what Mr. 
Willis referred to when we met him here in conversation. The 
demand was ingeniously presented and energetically sustained. 
It might seem surprising that such a demand should be made. It 
was based upon an old treaty made by Japan in 1873 with one of 
the kings, which it was claimed granted to all Japanese forever 
the rights of the most favored nation. In truth, that treaty re- 
lated only to traders and their privileges in the ports, and was so 
meant. It gave to Japanese liberty to come with ships and car- 
goes to ports where trade with other nations was permitted, where 

3468 



10 

tliey might hire houses and warehouses and trade, enjoying the 
same privileges as were granted to other nations. 

However, it did not amount to anything without rinding a 
"favored nation." They found an old treaty, made way back in 
1863, by one of the native kings with Spain, drawn apparently in 
very liberal terms, and meant to enabie the traders to come and 
trade in the ports, which provided that they should "enjoy the 
same rights and privileges which are granted to natives." 

So, by carrying over these privileges given to Spanish traders 
as such by a Kanaka king thirty-five years ago, and under which 
Spain had never thought of claiming the voting franchise, by dis- 
tributing them to the Japanese traders in 1873 they spread them 
out in their demand over the whole Japanese population, laborers 
and all. That population was being poured in at a tremendous 
pace, sometimes 1,000 a week, and they would have soon over- 
whelmed everything on the island by sheer numbers. The Ha- 
waiian Republic made its utmost endeavors to struggle against 
this flood. They protested, they denied any such interpretation 
of a treaty which concerned not laborers, but merely traders, such 
as came on trading voyages in that old time. 

They demanded that only those should land who had permits by 
the convention of 1886. They adopted a police restriction against 
paupers, such as all governments have a right to make. The po- 
lice regulation required every one who came to have $50. The 
immigration company in Japan was up to the exigency. They 
sent them still without permits and met the pauper restriction by 
a curious device. As the coolie left the vessel to go off, he was 
handed $50. which he took in one hand, and after he passed the 
inspector he handed it back to the Japanese agent; and so they 
pretended to comply with the literal terms of the restriction. 

The Hawaiian Government would not submit to such proceed- 
ings. They arrested those without permits or bona fide money 
and turned back hundreds of them— over 1,100. The Japanese 
Government were in dead earnest by this time. The game was in 
sight. If they could once get these men in sufficient numbers 
there with the voting power, they would soon turn the whole Gov- 
ernment into a Japanese commonwealth, and then they would 
quickly end the reciprocity treaty with the United States and 
all our special rights to Pearl Harbor or anything else. Japan sent 
a ship of war, which might well alarm them, and a high official 
with it, who demanded that the permit should not be required, and 
that they should be free to come in as voluntary immigrants 
without stint; that Hawaii had no right to inquire into the bona 
fide character of the fifty-dollar transaction, and presented a great 
claim for indemnity to those turned back. 

The little Republic held out stoutly and asked for arbitration. 
Japan said, "We will arbitrate; we will soon let you know ex- 
actly what we will do;" and the next month they said they would 
arbitrate all questions between the two countries except as to the 
bona fide character of the fifty-dollar transaction and the permit 
for immigration, nor would they arbitrate the treaty-construction 
question. In short, they were willing to refer to arbitration 
everything except the questions to be arbitrated. The horizon 
looked dark for Hawaii. 

But at this point the little Republic made a treaty of annexa- 
tion with the United States, and Japan learned that they could 
not discuss the matter further with them, because they had made 
a treaty of annexation with the United States, which, by its very 
nature, would extinguish all other treaties. Even that did not stop 

34G8 



11 



Japan, and she made an earnest protest to the United States 
against the treaty of annexation. Our Government answered 
promptly that Japan was not concerned in it; that we could deal 
only with the Hawaiian Republic, and refused to consider the pro- 
test, and this in such terms that Japan formally withdrew it. 
But she has not withdrawn these claims, she has not withdrawn 
the demand against the Hawaiian Government of the right to 
pour in Japanese without permit, or the right to demand for all 
Japanese any privileges or rights of the natives, which would 
include the right to vote and hold office. 

Now, suppose we reject this offer of the Hawaiian Republic to 
join our country and become part of us. They are then left an 
independent government, with no hope of joining us, and become 
responsible for their own international relations and must answer 
to Japan. If Japan should succeed in her contention as to the 
old treaty rights, her people will vote and soon change the ad- 
ministration of affairs there. They would elect their own officials 
and government in Hawaii. 

RECIPROCITY AND PEARL HARBOR RIGHTS THREATENED. 

They could at once attack the reciprocity treaty with the United 
States. By the terms of that treaty either party may terminate 
it on twelve months' notice. Pearl Harbor is therein granted to 
us; that is, we have a right to enter the harbor to improve it and 
use it as a coaling and naval station. 

We have never done any of these things. The entrance has not 
even been opened. No ship of ours has gone in there. Nothing 
whatever has been done in that direction. I tried vainly to have 
an appropriation made by Congress over a year ago to have the 
harbor opened and improved and our flag raised, in order to 
strengthen our title by possession, so that when the question of 
our tenure should come up we might have that point in our 
favor— an important point in any contention which might arise 
under international law. But since we have done nothing the 
case stands thus: The Pearl Harbor grant to us in the reciprocity 
treaty was in a new article, Article II, added when the treaty 
was renewed in 1887. After that amendment had been put on in 
the Senate, and before exchange of ratifications of the renewed 
reciprocity treaty thus modified, there was an exchange of official 
notes between Minister Carter, of the Hawaiian Islands, and Mr. 
Bayard, Secretary of State of the United States. 

Mr. Carter stated that they wanted it distinctly understood 
that in assenting to the Senate provision in a reciprocity treaty 
granting to the United States the use of Pearl Harbor as a coaling 
station they did not propose any derogation of the sovereignty or 
jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Islands or any cession of territory 
whatever; that it was to be regarded as a privilege granted as com- 
pensation for the advantages they obtained by reciprocity, and 
that with the cessation of reciprocity the Pearl Harbor grant 
would cease. 

Mr. Bayard's words in reply, are conclusive. He said: 

No ambiguity or obscurity in that amendment is observable: and I can 
discern therein no subtraction from Hawaiian sovereignity over the harbor 
to which it relates, nor any language importing a longer duration for the 
interpolated Article II than is provided for in Article I of the supplementary 
convention. 

Article I provides that this arrangement may be abrogated on 
©ne year's notice. There is our tenure of Pearl River. 
Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not a fact that under that grant the Gov- 

3168 



12 



eminent of the United States obtains absolutely nothing except 
the use of the water — that we obtain no land at all for the pur- 
pose of utilizing the harbor as a coaling station? 
Mr. H1TT. I will read the language of Article II: 

His Maiesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government 
of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, 
in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair 
station for the use of the vessels of the United States, and to that end the 
United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things 
needful to the purpose aforesaid. 

As the honorable gentleman says, we get nothing in that grant 
but the use of the water. 

Mr. Speaker, I have held the floor so much longer than I in- 
tended that I will hasten to conclude. 

COMMERCIAL INTERESTS. 

The commercial value of the islands, the great interests that 
are to be promoted or are to languish, dependent upon our pos- 
session of the islands, which are the crossing place of almost all 
the lines of steamers in that sea, have been often discussed. We 
have a very large trade there, over $18,000,000 annually of late years, 
and increasing. Not only do we admit their unrefined sugar free 
to our country, but, under the reciprocity treaty, they admit our 
products free of duty, and last year we sold to them §6,800,000 
worth of goods. 

Of course, if the islands are diverted to other control — if that 
treaty terminates — we will rapidly lose their trade. At present 
they purchase from us three-fourths of all their imports. We 
have a great shipping trade there, American ships carrying nearly 
all the trade of the island. Honolulu is the only port in the world 
where American shipping is so greatly in the ascendant as to out- 
number that of all other countries put together. Of the seven 
trans-Pacific steamship lines, six make Honolulu a way station. 
Shall we let it pass into rival or hostile control? 

Mr. GAINES. I understand from reliable sources that the pop- 
ulation of that island is more or less afflicted with leprosy. Will 
the gentleman please let us know what are the facts on that point? 

CHARACTER Off THE POPULATION— LEPROSY. 

Mr. H1TT. The population of the island. 109,000, is a mixed 
population. About half, or nearly half, are Asiatic — Chinese and 
Japanese. About twenty to twenty-five thousand are people of Eu- 
ropean or American origin — a good many Americans, a good many 
Germans, British, and a large number Portuguese and other na- 
tionalities. This Caucasian element is the strong intellectual and 
industrial force of the island. The Portuguese are people who 
have been there for some time. More than half of them were born 
on the island; were educated in the schools there, which are simi- 
lar to the schools here, and those children speak English as an 
ordinary American child. There is little or no leprosy among 
them or any cleanly, highly civilized people anywhere. After 
annexation 'the Asiatics would rapidly disappear in numbers 
under the operation of our laws and under the penal code of the 
islands, which would send back Chinese laborers very soon. 

The contract system would be terminated. The immigration 
from this country would no doubt increase. I have seen little 
reason to believe that there would be any difficulty whatever in 
regard to any maladies save among those Asiatic elements and 
the Kanakas. There is leprosy, brought to the islands, it is said, 
by the Chinese. I am not familiar with the facts, personally, 
never having visited the islands. There is a vague impression, 



13 



especially among Bible readers, who are very prevalent in this 
House [laughter J, as to that word "leprosy" in descriptions of the 
islands, which is not correct as to the form of disease called lep- 
rosy as it exists in Hawaii, and which I have myself often seen in 
the Orient. 

It is a malady that rarely affects people of the Caucasian race 
of the better class, who use an abundance of soap and water. It 
is not contagious in the ordinary sense. Why, I have seen chil- 
dren in the huts of lepers in Turkey, sons and daughters of lepers, 
8 and 10 years of age, who were beautiful children, and who had 
never been away from the leper village. That is a common sight 
in the Orient. It is not the loathsome, running disease mentioned 
so often in the Bible. It seems to be a paralysis and withering of 
the ears, fingers, etc., and they drop away painlessly. 

It is communicated by long association and intercourse, but it 
is not communicated like the smallpox, or yellow fever, or any of 
those rapidly contagious maladies. The present vigorous, well- 
organized, well arranged government of the islands has segregated 
it at Mo'.okai; and though the elements there for the spread of 
such maladies are very favorable, in that oriental population, and 
among those weak and diseased natives, yet it is' a comparatively 
small detraction from the condition of the general population of 
the island, and it would probably never be found to affect us in 
this country. We have had it in a sporadic way in our country for 
a long time and it is controlled. There is a leper colony in Louisi- 
ana and one in Canada. I will leave that question to experts. 

Mr. LOVE. I should like to ask the gentleman what number 
of American citizens there are in the island? 

Mr. HITT. I do not think there are any American citizens ex- 
cept some travelers and sojourners. There are many people there 
of American origin, but they are Hawaiians, some of them sons 
and grandsons of men who went from the United States. But 
they are not American citizens, except partially, by a peculiar 
provision of their law. which allows men to retain a title to for- 
eign citizenship. I think there are a good many of them; but 
what is ordinarily meant by strictly American citizens relates to 
people who travel or sojourn there from this country and go away. 
There are several thousands there of American origin, and who 
are very strongly American at heart. 

Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. I have listened with a great 
deal of interest to what the gentleman has said about this; but 
there is one phase of the question that I think the House would 
hear with a great deal of interest, and that is the result and effect 
of annexation, not upon the commercial or military welfare of 
this country, but as a departure from the established customs of 
our country. I should like to hear the gentleman upon that phase 
of the question. 

NO NEW POLICY. 

Mr. HITT. This measure does not launch us upon any new 
policy, as I tried to explain, but the importance of the question 
lies, first of all, in the necessity of possessing these islands for the 
defense of our western shore, the pro tec tion'and promotion of our 
commercial interests, and the welfare and security of our own coun- 
try generally. Mr. Blaine stated it very well in a dispatch where 
he said the Panama Canal connecting our two shores, facilitating 
their defense and communication, was a purely American ques- 
tion, and that the possession of the Sandwich or Hawaiian Islands, 
giving them strategic control of the North Pacific, was one of 
purely American policy. 



14 



In the whole of what I have said I have discussed this question 
solely as it affected our own country. The population there is so 
small that it can not be considered an element of much compara- 
tive importance. It is not one seven-hundredth part of our pop- 
ulation at home. It is the importance of the group as a point, 
what military and naval men call a strategic point, that makes it 
of extreme importance and should make us prompt to seize upon 
the first opportunity to have rightful possession of the islands. 

SUGAR COMPETITION. 

Something is said about the danger to our beet-sugar interests 
in this country from the competition of Hawaiian cane sugar 
after annexation coming in free of duty. There may well be 
some persons connected with the sugar-refining i merest who are 
hostile to annexation; but the producers of beet sugar or unre- 
fined sugar have nothing to apprehend. The total available 
natural cane lands in the islands do not amount to four townships 
of our land. They could not supply a tenth of what we consume. 
Besides, annexation will make no difference to the farmer here, 
as the raw or unrefined sugar of the Hawaiian Islands now comes 
in as free of duty under the Hawaiian reciprocity treaty as it 
would after annexation, and the only man who is affected is the 
refiner, who is protected now by the tariff against refined Ha- 
waiian sugar. Benned sugar does not come in free under the 
treaty, and if annexation comes the refined sugar will come in 
free, and of course the refiners are hostile to it. 

Mr. RIDGELY. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs stated what is a very important matter in regard to the 
treaty existing between the Sandwich Islands and Japan. Under 
that treaty the Japanese Government claimed the right of citizen- 
ship for Japanese subjects who are now on the island, or who 
may hereafter go there under this treaty. Now, my question is, 
if we accept the islands under the present bill, will we have to ac- 
cept those Japanese subjects under that treaty? 

Mr. HITT. Not at all— not as citizens. 

Mr. RIDGELY. And involve ourselves in that affair. 

Mr. HITT. This action extinguishing the sovereignty of Ha- 
waii and incorporating the islands in the United States would 
abrogate all her treaties. The only part that would survive would 
be claims arising or accruing prior to this time under former 
treaties. All treaties fall with the extinction of the existence of 
a nation. Their foreign affairs pass under our control. 

POSSIBLE STATEHOOD. 

Mr. CL ARDY. The gentleman has very interestingly and very 
instructively explained various features of this question, but there 
is one point that 1 should like to know still further about, and that 
is this: Suppose these islands are received into the United States 
under this resolution, what does this Administration intend, or 
what do the people of the United States intend, to do with them? 
Will they be admitted as a State? It seems to me that is a very 
important question. 

Mr. HITT. 1 am not a mind reader, and the Almighty alone 
can answer what is in men's minds. 

Mr. CLARDY. The gentleman ought to have some idea of 
what the Government intends to do. 

Mr. HITT. You will have to find that out from other sources. 
By the terms of this resolution all such questions will be deter- 
mined by Congress, and Congress will and should do what the 



15 



American people want done. The President will have no power 
over the subject. 

Mr. RIDGELY. Do the Japanese in Hawaii vote? 

Mr. H1TT. They do not vote now, and the disposition and 
mode of government of those islands and everything connected 
with them is, under the terms of the joint resolution, lei t in the 
control of Congress. 

Mr. FLEMING. I should like to ask this question, which I 
think is a legitimate one: What is the personal opinion of the gen- 
tleman himself as to the status that the Hawaiian Islands ought 
to occupy in future developments of the country? I should like 
to know if the gentleman has any information on the subject. 

Mr. HITT. It is nothing but the private opinion of one indi- 
vidual, and is of little value. 

Mr. FLEMING. It would carry a great deal of weight, and it 
is a question that is troubling some of us as to the development 
that is to come in the future. 

Mr. HITT. It is a development that relates to the future. 
Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott decision, speaking of the 
constitutionality of the acquisition of territory, said that there was 
no power granted in the Constitution of the United States to ac- 
quire any territory in any way; that there was only a grant to 
Congress to admit States. A State is a civil political organization 
of people occupying territory or land previously possessed by the 
United States. That has been the fact as to all States admitted 
except Texas, which was acquired as a Territory or possession, 
and admitted as a State at the same time. 

Judge Taney added that in the construction of the power to 
admit States it authorizes the acquisition of territory not fit for 
admission at the time, and the power to acquire territory for that 
purpose rests upon the same discretion, and is a question for the 
political department of the Government. 

In truth, it is impossible to imagine a sovereign state without 
the power of increasing its boundaries. It enters into the very 
idea of sovereignty, and Chief Justice Fuller said in the Mormon 
Church case that the power to make acquisitions of territory by 
conquest, by treaty, or by cession is an incident of national sov- 
ereignty. Chief Justice Taney said in his supplemental remark, 
after his comments on the restricted grant in the Constitution to 
admit States, that territory that was acquired was always ac- 
quired with a theoretical view to ultimately being a State or a 
part of a State, a condition of statehood in some form at some time. 

Mr. FLEMING. That is what I meant. 

Mr. HITT. When we admitted those vast stretches of ice and 
rock in Alaska that border upon the Arctic Ocean it was with the 
theoretical view that some day, under some conditions, they might 
be a part of the United States as States, not merely as a landed 
possession or territory; but we have waited a generation, and we 
may wait a thousand years. There are gentlemen sitting all 
around me who represent districts in States made out of territory 
which we kept waiting the greater part of a century. How long 
was the region which is Montana a territorial possession? I do 
not know what will be the ultimate destiny of this little group of 
islands and their population, but we may imagine that, with the 
assent of California or Oregon or Washington, they may become 
a county or counties and a part of one of those States, and thus 
assume the quality of statehood. But this I give merely as a sug- 
gestion, and representing the opinion of nobody else, and 1 did 
not intend to bring it into the debate. 

3468 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii mil • 

019 944 337 9 



16 

Mr. SIMS. I want to ask about the expense that it will be to 
this Government to maintain this territory. 

Mr. HITT. That is a question no man can answer with pre- 
cision. It is a well-managed little republic on a sound financial 
basis. There is a balance to credit now in the budget of the 
islands. They are not running in debt, but have a margin of sur- 
plus. I trust we can administer them as economically as that Gov- 
ernment does. With the gentleman who has asked me the question 
and other gentlemen who will be here in Congress, I have confi- 
dence enough in their wisdom to feel sure that the affairs of a little 
added population, numbering but one seven-hundredth part of our 
own people, will be successfully cared for in our future legislation. 

I have detained the House very long, and I hope that I have not 
failed to answer any question. 

Mr. HENRY of Mississippi. If we take these islands and annex 
them, have we to pay anything in the way of debts? 

Mr. HITT. Weil,* they have assets and liabilities, the assets 
being twice as great as the liabilities. We take both when we 
take the Government. There is a provision in the resolution that 
the debt shall not in any case exceed $4,000,000. The assets of the 
islands are given in the statement of the financial officer showing 
that they are nearly twice that. 

Mr. HENRY of Mississippi. Do we assume the indebtedness? 

Mr. HITT. With their assets we take their liabilities. The 
assets are $7,938,000, and the liabilities about 83,900.000. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Is there anything in the shape of paper 
money or bills which this Government becomes responsible to re- 
deem; and if so. how much? 

Mr. HITT. There are liabilities; but they are all easily ascer- 
tainable by the official reports before us. There are three series 
of bonds, in all $3,330,200. There are deposits in postal savings 
bank of $882.345. 29, making $4,212,545.29. less bond proceeds cash in 
thetreasury of $221,565.90 and postal bank^eposits of $111. 371.04. in 
all $332,936.94, leaving total net debt $3,879,608.35. I think there 
are no other bills or paper money. It does not appear in the re- 
port. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I understand that there are several hundred 
thousand— probably $280,000. 

Mr. HITT. It is a pretty sound Government financially; the 
public credit there is good. 

I have consumed so much time I should ask the pardon of the 
House. The consideration of this measure has been long deferred. 
There has been so much discussion throughout the country, such 
manifest impatience for its consideration here, that at last there 
is a pretty clear perception by almost everyone that the annexa- 
tion resolution before us is in response and obedience to the de- 
mands of the whole country. I think the constituency of nine- 
tenths of the gentlemen here, if they could utter their wiil by 
votes, would command us to promptly pass this resolution. Our 
votes in passing it will voice the earnest purpose of the American 
people; the conservative sentiment of the country is expressed by 
it. as a measure for the welfare, for the security and prosperity 
of the whole nation. Let us pass it and carry out the will of the 
American people. I thank the House for such patient attention. 
[Loud applause.] 

[Wednesday June 15, the question was taken and there were 
yeas 209, nays 91 . So the joint resolution was passed by the House. J 

3168 



